D&D (2024) Greyhawk Confirmed. Tell Me Why.

[Faolyn]

So why can't they use Goliath lore from the 3rd edition of the game when Goliaths were added to Greyhawk in Races of Stone? If they can just not write anything and use the lore of elves from previous editions, which include elves that no longer exist, why can't they do that exact same thing for Goliaths?

WotC sure can use the 3e lore. They just need to reprint that lore in the 5e books rather than expect that DMs will own a 20-year-old book from two editions previous.

What made you think that I was saying they can't use that lore? I mean, all those examples I wrote were literally just examples that I made up on the fly. You didn't think I owned Races of Stone, read the lore, dismissed it, and was trying to make people use my lore instead, did you?

So, the chapter just needs to say "You only need to write a few words or sentences on the races in your world" and give an example using two or three of the races and that's it? Okay. That could be done without mentioning Tiefling, Dragonborn, Orcs, or Goliaths so there is no reason to assume that those races being newer to Greyhawk would be a problem with that advice.

Sure it can be done without mentioning those species. But since Greyhawk didn't contain those species when it was released, and people in this thread have expressed a need to know where they come from[1], it makes sense to kill two birds with one stone and use this as an opportunity to show where they're from.

[1] And the fact that people were wanting something official to tell them where those species are from rather puts a damper on the idea that every DM is going to be able to instantly know where those species are from.

Which one refers to Worldbuilding as done by a DM who would need the guidance of the DMG? Is that the one where you facepalmed at the idea of it being an action instead of a type of media? Or the one where you called it a type of action that can be taught?

Well, to start with, actions can be taught. Writing and painting are actions (as are any other creative field out there), but you can teach people how to write and paint--how to emulate styles, how to get certain effects, how to refine until you get the finished product you want.

Secondly, while "worldbuilding" may be a verb, it's also a handy term because "body of writings, illustrations, maps, and other forms of media that contain information about a fictional setting you have created or are in the process of creating" is a very wordy noun.

Thirdly, you are literally complaining about a part of speech. Would you like to address the actual topic at hand, or do you want to continue trying (and failing) to distract me by kvetching about meaningless details?

You have repeatedly stated they are making a mistake.

I have said it would be better for them to make a new world.

Why do you doubt that? What reason do we have to think that they won't lean into the things that make Greyhawk different?

I could be wrong. Maybe WotC will really lean into the dark 'n' gritty aspects of the setting, make all the NPCs morally gray, have a whole Wild West territory, include a Random Space Mutation table, and have really crazy dungeons. I just have no reason to believe that until I see it.

 

[Faolyn]

I think talking about your world's governments is not crucial to worldbuilding for FRPGing. Most of the world, for most of human history, has got by without governments in the contemporary sense of that concept.

Furthermore, governments figure very little in classic fantasy fiction.

What are the governments in JRRT's Middle Earth? No idea. Does the The Shire have any public officials other than a Mayor and some Shirriffs? We're not told. It's modelled on England, but does it have JPs? Are Shirriffs, among other things, analogous to JPs? We're not told. Does The Shire have a system of criminal justice? We're not told.

Gondor is an important kingdom. How is it administered? Who rules Osgiliath, when it is not being sacked by Sauron's forces? We don't know.

What is the government of Bree? Are tariffs levied on imported goods? We don't know.

Or consider Earthsea. This world provides an engaging backdrop for multiple, highly-regarded fantasy stories. How are the lands of Earthsea governed? How are taxes collected, and who commissions public works? Almost nothing about these things is said.

In REH's Hyborian Age, what are the duties of the King of Aquilonia, other than to lead the military defence of the kingdom? We don't know.

My advice to a new GM would be to identify/invent a couple of prominent local officials, and to make a few decisions about them, having some regard to what sorts of themes or adventures they might connect to: they're a wealthy land-owner whose power is owed to that fact (much of mediaeval Europe); they're an elected official whose power is due to their ability to command popular support (classical Athens); they are an urban oligarch whose tremendous wealth grants them tremendous informal power, which then demands that they be granted some official position of authority (a Roman Senator or early modern Italian oligarch); etc.

If that seems like too much work, and too much worrying about political sociology, then my follow-up advice would be to do less work, not more! Grab a title from Gygax's handy list in his DMG (or whatever contemporary version of that is available) and just stick it onto an important NPC.

These are good points... for novels. When you write a novel, you control exactly how much into detail you need to go. The story of LotR isn't a story about the government or criminal justice system of Middle Earth, and so there wasn't a need for JRRT to go into detail about it. If the hobbits get into trouble, they can just make a daring escape. Conversely, Discworld novels do go into governmental politics and criminal justice at times, and so Pratchett did need to go into detail about it.

But RPGs aren't novels. The DM doesn't (or shouldn't) control the PCs. You have no idea if the PCs are suddenly going to decide that they want to speak to the ruler of the town. At most, you can assume that the PCs are going to do stuff that puts them afoul of the law.

You obviously don't need to go into great detail about the government or law of an area unless the actual adventure is about those things, but it is a good idea to thing of something like "the town is ruled by a mayor who tries to be fair to everyone" or "the city is ruled by a Court of Lords who are often influenced by wealthy lobbyists." You don't even need to name the mayor or lords until you need them. You could even make this into a table, to make it easier to generate on the fly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

These are good points... for novels. When you write a novel, you control exactly how much into detail you need to go. The story of LotR isn't a story about the government or criminal justice system of Middle Earth, and so there wasn't a need for JRRT to go into detail about it. If the hobbits get into trouble, they can just make a daring escape. Conversely, Discworld novels do go into governmental politics and criminal justice at times, and so Pratchett did need to go into detail about it.

But RPGs aren't novels. The DM doesn't (or shouldn't) control the PCs. You have no idea if the PCs are suddenly going to decide that they want to speak to the ruler of the town. At most, you can assume that the PCs are going to do stuff that puts them afoul of the law.

You obviously don't need to go into great detail about the government or law of an area unless the actual adventure is about those things, but it is a good idea to thing of something like "the town is ruled by a mayor who tries to be fair to everyone" or "the city is ruled by a Court of Lords who are often influenced by wealthy lobbyists." You don't even need to name the mayor or lords until you need them. You could even make this into a table, to make it easier to generate on the fly.

Precisely. This is why actual setting books tend to have details that a story set in those settings likely wouldn't need, because the designers don't know what the players will need for their game, and because that information would in most cases logically exist, whether or not a particular adventure needs it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I only talked about removing because I was being quick and recovering from a party.

"Sometimes you might need to add a race that is not in the array available in the Players Handbook. This could be For many reasons.

You might want to add Genasi to your roster of available races to match your themes of elemental power seeping in to your world from the Inner Planes, the Elemental Chaos, Jotunhiem, or the Eyrie.

You might want to add Tabaxi and Leonin to emphasize the dangers of the wilds in your setting.

Be careful when adding races to your roster of species available to players and also those unavailable two players. Racist feel more natural when they have a strong identity within your setting. Each addition should have an iconic story that drive them in your setting. Be wary of adding too many races that feel the same niche. Once you get past 3 races that furfill the same tropes either stop adding new races that have that same style or add to the included races traits that separates them from each other. If you include a race in your setting of your choice or requested by a player, one of you should decide how that race fits in the setting: they're placing the world, their relationship to one other race, and how they factor into dungoenering."

I get the feel you are going for, but again, the way you go about it is just going to cause problems. What is the Eyrie? Why can't I find it in any of my books?

I find it very interesting that in the post directly above this one, you criticize WotC in 2014 as "reminding an already experienced DM" because this feels like you are taking a similar stance. You write as though the reader has access and knowledge to all of these "basic" things, that you cannot assume they have access or knowledge to.

Also, "how they factor into Dungeoneering?" That's a terrible way to think about adding anything to the game. Dungeoneering is much, much rarer these days and not a primary focus.

That's advice I literally gave 2 real DMs.

Just because you gave it out as advice, doesn't mean it is actually advising of anything. You are saying "sometimes species can be rare." Okay? What does that even mean? Wizards are supposedly rare, but I can go to any setting and find groups of wizards. IS it just that they won't be everywhere? Okay, IME other than humans that makes EVERY species rare.

Heck, the campaign I'm playing in that team-built world? I can't think of a single Human NPC that we have met. Does that make humans rare? Well, we built the world, and we didn't say that.

There just isn't anything you can DO with this advice, as written. It doesn't explain the point.

Was every nonPHB race included in the last DMG or did they give just an example?

It better offer advice on creating feats if feats are core. Just like Race, Subrace, and Subclass the last time.

Seriously.
How low of a standard do we want for the DMG?

I'm beginning to see why the DMG was done so late and rushed cuz it sounds like few care if the dang thing is any good.

In the world-building section? They didn't include any reference at all to Non-PHB Species that were playable. Not a single one.

And when they did do the race and subrace examples in the DMG, which were a different chapter, it was a variant of the Elf (which was in the PHB and is now included in the High Elf in the new PHB) and the Aasimar as an inversion of the Tielfling (which was in the PHB)

Now, might it be a good idea to offer advice on how to create custom feats? Sure, in a chapter devoted to that sort of tinkering. Not in the chapter on World-building. Because it opens a door that no one just learning about world-building should open. And even then, I'm hesitant about the idea of offering "this species, but a feat" as an example to begin with.

Why shouldn't the book be offering examples?

Sea elf and Triton would be my examples of race and subrace like how Aasimar and Eladrin war before .

It's not that hard. It doesn't take that much space.

Why is so much hostility towards teaching new DMs in this community?

There really is a string of "#$@& dem kids" dug deep in the D&D Zeitgeist.

Did you even notice that I didn't comment on the Orc example or the Tiefling and Aasimar example? Because those things will be in the PHB, they are something the new DM will have access to.

This isn't hostility towards teaching, this is differentiating between 101 and 301 level subjects. You wouldn't teach a history class that requires someone to have lived in Germany to a bunch of high schoolers in America who have never left the country.

So far you have mentioned Tritons, Thri-Kreen, Sea Elves, Tabaxi, Leonin, Genasi... NONE OF WHICH you can assume a new DM even KNOWS about. Why can't you use examples of drow, dwarves, or halflings? Things you know the person you are teaching has access to and is aware of? Instead, you want to flood them with names and concepts that YOU are familiar with, but that they are not. This is not good teaching. And it is especially bad at teaching how to use speices in Worldbuilding.

Yes, you were rushed, but so far you have ONLY spoken about adding or removing species. Not how to USE them. This?

Choosing The spread of races in your campaign setting is a major aspect of worldbuilding. Which intelligent species are in your world and which ones are available for players to play as creates the overall feel of your campaign. You should choose races that match the setting you decide to make and you are comfortable with.

This is the beginning of section that can actually give useful advice, how to use Species to create a feeling in a setting. How they can be used to emphasize parts of the world, how they can affect the history of your world, how they might interact and create interesting dynamics in your world. Instead you are focused on the least important information. And when called on it, you say I are unwilling to teach? Get off it.

 

[Remathilis]

Precisely. This is why actual setting books tend to have details that a story set in those settings likely wouldn't need, because the designers don't know what the players will need for their game, and because that information would in most cases logically exist, whether or not a particular adventure needs it.

But doesn't that create the Forgotten Realms paradox: a setting so detailed you can't change or add new things without upsetting the balance of the other elements?

 

[Micah Sweet]

But doesn't that create the Forgotten Realms paradox: a setting so detailed you can't change or add new things without upsetting the balance of the other elements?

I don't see an issue with that. People want a differing amount of detail in their settings. My preference is for more rather than less. If I'm using someone else's setting, I want a lot of detail. I can always change it I don't like it, but it's a lot more work to invent it if it ain't there.

 

[Maxperson]

But doesn't that create the Forgotten Realms paradox: a setting so detailed you can't change or add new things without upsetting the balance of the other elements?

The Forgotten Realms, as I've shown repeatedly, doesn't do that. You can change or add freely to it without upsetting anything...............................other than maybe a few grognards who want the 5% or 10% of the world that's detailed to be 100% of everything.

 

[Minigiant]

I get the feel you are going for, but again, the way you go about it is just going to cause problems. What is the Eyrie? Why can't I find it in any of my books?

I find it very interesting that in the post directly above this one, you criticize WotC in 2014 as "reminding an already experienced DM" because this feels like you are taking a similar stance. You write as though the reader has access and knowledge to all of these "basic" things, that you cannot assume they have access or knowledge to.

Also, "how they factor into Dungeoneering?" That's a terrible way to think about adding anything to the game. Dungeoneering is much, much rarer these days and not a primary focus.

The Eyrie would be in my DMG

If I were to write the DMG,I would not just use the the Feywild and Shadowfell as my echoplanes
I would have many echoplanes

Jotunhiem (The DMG describes the 9 planes of Norse myth but explains none of them)
Xibalba/Frightlants
Dinoworld/Pangea/Beastlplane
Eyrie/Dragonplane

If you are going to teach worldbuilding, tech it. Give them options.

Pick 2 Echo planes
Pick a Inner Plane setup (Elemental Planes, Paraelemental Planes, Elemental Chaos, Fire/Ice World)
Pick a Outer Plane setup (Great Wheel, Astral Planes, Heaven/Hell)

In the world-building section? They didn't include any reference at all to Non-PHB Species that were playable. Not a single one.

And that's a mistake

And when they did do the race and subrace examples in the DMG, which were a different chapter, it was a variant of the Elf (which was in the PHB and is now included in the High Elf in the new PHB) and the Aasimar as an inversion of the Tielfling (which was in the PHB)

Now, might it be a good idea to offer advice on how to create custom feats? Sure, in a chapter devoted to that sort of tinkering. Not in the chapter on World-building. Because it opens a door that no one just learning about world-building should open. And even then, I'm hesitant about the idea of offering "this species, but a feat" as an example to begin with.

Who said it would be in the Worldbuilding chapter

(Refer to Chapter Y, page XX)

If the 2014 wasn't organized like something out the toilet, you wouldn't ask this question.
Which is my point.
Until you see WOTC show they know how to reference, you can't imagine them doing it.

Did you even notice that I didn't comment on the Orc example or the Tiefling and Aasimar example? Because those things will be in the PHB, they are something the new DM will have access to.

This isn't hostility towards teaching, this is differentiating between 101 and 301 level subjects. You wouldn't teach a history class that requires someone to have lived in Germany to a bunch of high schoolers in America who have never left the country.

That's the core fight I keep referring to.

Experienced DMs and New DMs are fighting for the same books.

One side always wins.​

 

[pemerton]

Precisely. This is why actual setting books tend to have details that a story set in those settings likely wouldn't need, because the designers don't know what the players will need for their game, and because that information would in most cases logically exist, whether or not a particular adventure needs it.

The facts might exist. Information about them probably won't - the typical mediaeval person does not have access to information about how they are governed, of the sort that might be found in a contemporary politics or sociology textbook.

RPGs aren't novels. The DM doesn't (or shouldn't) control the PCs. You have no idea if the PCs are suddenly going to decide that they want to speak to the ruler of the town. At most, you can assume that the PCs are going to do stuff that puts them afoul of the law.

You obviously don't need to go into great detail about the government or law of an area unless the actual adventure is about those things, but it is a good idea to thing of something like "the town is ruled by a mayor who tries to be fair to everyone" or "the city is ruled by a Court of Lords who are often influenced by wealthy lobbyists." You don't even need to name the mayor or lords until you need them. You could even make this into a table, to make it easier to generate on the fly.

My view is that most FRPG worldbuilding is so unrealistic that it would make no difference to just make this stuff up on the spot.

Like, what does "the city is ruled by a Court of Lords" even mean? Who pays for paving the plaza - the "city" (whatever that means) from a public fund? Or one of the Lords, from their private wealth? Are contracts binding if unexecuted on both sides? And what happen is someone doesn't, or can't, keep a promise to pay - does one of the Lords decide? All of them?

And what is a lobbyist, in the context of systems of government that lack lobbies? I mean, what would it even mean to talk about a "lobbyist" in 11th century England? There is no system of public regulation of private wealth-generating activities, and hence nothing to "lobby" about.

These issues are nothing to do with what the PCs are or are not going to do. REH didn't know what Conan was going to do until he sat down at his typewriter, and Conan did lots of violent, theft-oriented stuff, but REH had no need to give us a theory of the government of any of the lands he wrote about.

The issue is about the scope of knowledge and imagination and what is worth the GM's time. Some general remarks about the permissibility of interpersonal violence - the worlds of D&D are very tolerant in this respect compared to, eg, contemporary Australia - and about whether wealth is predominantly rural or increasingly urban, seem like enough to give a general picture. Perhaps also something about status, which is likely to come up in play. And maybe a couple of other salient and/or colourful local customs.

 

[Hussar]

?

Sea elf and Triton would be my examples of race and subrace like how Aasimar and Eladrin war before .
.

But both aasimar and eladrin are defined in the 2014 DMG. They don’t require referencing a book the new dm may not have.